 | Computer science Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
run()
Why create a new instance of itself with a "run" function instead of typing stdout.printf from the static main? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.24.29 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to show off a bit more of the language? It's not supposed to be something useful anyway.195.110.28.107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello-world programs are supposed to be simple, not to show any advanced feature beyond string output. Engelec (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If it should be as simple as possible, we should use something like this:
using GLib;
void main () {
print ("Hello World\n");
}
However, it would be useful to have a second example, then, that shows a bit more of the syntax. Juergbi (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- In the "object oriented" example, why is the static main function placed within the object? The static main may as just as well be placed in the global scope, which I think maps closer to how the OS launches the program. Pmg (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- One reason (not applicable to this example), would be so that main can access private/protected class members and methods. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
C++
Can somebody highlight the pros of using Vala, compared to using C++/gtkmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.35.175 (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Generated code?
It appears to me that the section with the generated code does not fit the philosophy of wikipedia. Including more features of the language seems to me to be much more suitable. Any one minds me erasing that section? --Pmg (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Erase! The idea of displaying generated code is in discord with the inherent philosophy of presenting a programming language: a programming language should relieve the programmer from viewing any generated code. If it instead be a preprocessor, then generated code should instead be very sparse. The explaining texts should in both cases contain information on what the system provides to the user, not how it works inside, except very superficially. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Mem mgmt?
How is it memory managed if not garbage collected? Does the clause "The primary advantage of Vala over C++/gtkmm is that Vala is memory-managed (not using garbage collection)." mean that it is reference counted, which is sometimes explained as garbage collection, sometimes not. C++ is not garbage collected, and memory management is crude, but then is Vala better?
I should say that one possible advantage of Vala could be that it is not C, nor C++. C++ has deep trouble in the specification, giving the significant deficiencies:
- templates are essentially failed, it is not possible to write templates that works on all compilers, and it is not possible to write templates that can generate types from both inbuilt types and user defined types,
- the objects are so badly specified, that object initialization is not possible in systems with pthreads (parallell threads), and objects cannot be shared over shared memory either,
C has much much less deficiencies, most of which are impractical inconveniences:
- the inbuilt types doesn't define anything, you cannot be garanteed more than one bit of information, it's in theory fairly impossible to write working programs, but in practice there is some kind of de-facto standard of type sizes which the C standard doesn't care about (!!),
- the type control of C is weak - sometimes held forth as a blessing, but as any real programmer know, there are situations when you wish to override types, and other situations when you wish a really tough type control;
Said: Rursus ☻ 08:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Answering myslef: reference counting it is. I'll update accordingly. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Feel free to fix spelin erors and formulation fawltzz. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)